Managerial effectiveness in dealing with ill-structured decision situations
is compared across hierarchy levels using a long-duration, multifaceted, and
complex computerized simulation. Forty-five managers from a large Indian
metal-processing unit employing more than 4,000 managers in 11 levels and 50,000
staff in 9 levels and offering lifelong employment participated in the study. Data
of 20 managers were finally analyzed. Results revealed that middle-level managers
faced several crises while dealing with the simulated task and ended up with
highly unfavorable outcomes, and were significantly less effective as compared to
frontline and senior managers. Frontline managers were as effective as the seniors
and even better than them with respect to some of the measures employed. Examining
the career profile of participant managers, reasons for the observed performance
pattern are explored. The article ends with a reflective narration of the author's
experiences in conducting a complex computerized simulation study in the
Asian-Indian context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of
operational research is past. Journal of Operational Research
Society,30, 93-104.
2.
Adams, E. F., Laker, D. R., & Hulin, C. L.
(1977). An investigation of the influence of job level and functional
specialty on job attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62(3),
335-343.
3.
Alexander, L. D. (1979). The effect
level in the hierarchy and functional area have on the extent Mintzberg's roles are
required by managerial jobs. Academy of Management Proceedings,
186-189.
4.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and
organization. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Blankenship, V., & Miles, R. E.
(1968). Organizational structure and managerial decision behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 13,
106-120.
6.
Brehmer, B., & Dörner, D. (1993).
Experiments with computer simulated microworlds: Escaping the narrow straits of the
laboratory as well as the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers and
Human Behavior, 9,
171-184.
7.
Currie, G., & Proctor, S. (2001).
Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers. Human Resource
Management Journal, 11(3),
53-69.
8.
Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A.
(1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental
identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21,
140-144.
9.
Dörner, D. (1980). On the difficulties
people have in dealing with complexity. Simulation & Games,
11(1), 87-106.
10.
Dörner, D. (1990). The logic of
failure. In D. E. Broadbent, A. Baddley, & J. T. Reason (Eds.), Human factors in
hazardous situations: Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London (B
327, pp. 463-473). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
11.
Dörner, D. (1991). The investigation of
action regulation in uncertain and complex situations. In J. Rasmussen, B. Brehmer,
& J. Leplat (Eds.), Distributed decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative
work (pp. 349-354). New York: John Wiley.
12.
Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (2001). Employee
involvement and the middle manager: Saboteur or scapegoat? Human Resource
Management Journal, 11(1),
24-40.
13.
Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1994).
Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management's strategic role. Academy
of Management Executive, 8(4),
47-57.
14.
Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1997).
Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 34(3),
465-485.
15.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994).
Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.
Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
16.
Frohman, A. L., & Johnson, L. W.
(1993). The middle management challenge: Moving from crisis to
empowerment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Grimes, A. J., & Klein, S. M.
(1973). The technological imperative: The relative impact of task unit,
modal technology, and hierarchy on structure. Academy of Management
Journal, 16(4), 583-597.
18.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T.
(1970). Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,
176-190.
19.
Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C.
(1965). A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49(3),
209-216.
20.
Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle
managers. Harvard Business Review, 80(8),
72-79.
21.
Johnson, L. W., & Frohman, A. L.
(1989). Identifying and closing the gap in the middle of
organizations. Academy of Management Executive,
3(2), 107-114.
22.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The
role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal
of Management, 16(2),
307-336.
23.
King, W. A., Fowler, W. S., & Zeithaml, P. C.
(2001). Managing organizational competencies of competitive
advantage: The middle-management edge. Academy of Management
Executive, 15(2),
95-106.
24.
Mahoney, T. A. (1979). Organizational
hierarchy and position worth. Academy of Management Journal,
22(4), 726-737.
25.
March, J. G. (1997). Understanding how
decisions happen in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision
making (pp. 9-32). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
26.
March, J. G., & Romelaer, P.
(1976). Position and presence in the drift of decisions. In J. G. March
& J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and choice in organizations (pp.
251-275). Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
27.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I.
(1972). A program for research on management information systems.
Management Science, 19(4),
475-487.
28.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I.
(1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York:
Wiley.
29.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A.
(1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21,
246-275.
30.
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F.
(2001). Decision making: It is not what you think. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 42(3),
89-93.
31.
Nair, K. U. (2001). Cognitive maps of
managers and complex problem solving. In Z. Shapira & T. Land (Eds.),
Organizational cognition: Computation and interpretation (pp.
211-239). New Brunswick, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Nair, K. U., & Ramnarayan, S.
(2000). Individual differences in need for cognition and complex problem
solving. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2),
305-328.
33.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).
Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Nilakant, V. (1991). Dynamics of middle
management roles: A study in four Indian organizations. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 6(1), 17-24.
35.
Ramnarayan, S., & Strohschneider, S.
(1997). How organizations influence individual styles of thinking: A
simulation study. Journal of Euro-Asian Management,
3, 1-29.
36.
Ramnarayan, S., Strohschneider, S., & Schaub, H.
(1997). Trappings of expertise and the pursuit of failure.
Simulation & Gaming, 28(1),
28-43.
37.
Schaub, H. (1988). MANUTEX: Terminology
& definitions, operating instructions and introductory text. Bamberg, Germany:
Internal Document of the Institute of Psychology, University of Bamberg
(Kapuzinerstr. 16, 96045 Bamberg).
38.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth
discipline. New York: Doubleday.
39.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative
behavior (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
40.
Stoner, J. A. F., Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D.
R., Jr. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
41.
Thomas, R., & Dunkerly, D. (1999).
Careering downwards? Middle managers experiences in the downsized organization.
British Journal of Management, 10(2),
157-169.
42.
Ungson, G. R., Braunstein, D. N., & Hall, P. D.
(1981). Managerial information processing: A research review.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1),
116-134.
